Commission: Pacific halibut by-catch a serious problem for Alaska fishery
Craig Medred |
Jan 25, 2012
Alaska halibut fishermen of every sort could face fishing cuts this summer because "retrospective bias" compounded by "structural uncertainty" has led the "WobbleSQ assessment model" to adjust the "CEY" for the Pacific halibut fishery, the staff of the International Pacific Halibut Commission told a packed meeting room at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel on Tuesday. The comments were almost enough to make reasonable fishermen wonder if a new species had invaded the North Pacific. Say hello to the dreaded "stifling bureaucratese." Dozens of fishermen from the Lower 48, Canada and Alaska are now wrestling to understand this critter, though what is happening in the ocean is on one level really simple: there is a Pacific Coast-wide shortage of adult halibut, and IPHC staff is recommending a commercial halibut catch for the central Gulf of Alaska of about 12 million pounds, down more than 16 percent from last year's catch, which was down about 25 percent from 2010's catch limit of about 20 million pounds. That's a 40 percent drop in two years. The central Gulf is a nursery ground for Pacific halibut and ground zero for the 49th state's largest commercial and sport halibut fisheries. As proposed by commission staff, the guideline harvest level for the sport charter fishery would also be slashed about 16 percent this summer. But that reduction -- if the commission accepts staff recommendations as it normally does -- is thought to be meaningless as the Alaska tourism business struggles to recover completely from a national recession. The guideline harvest this year was 3.65 million pounds, but charter anglers caught only 2.8 million pounds, which was an increase over 2010 when they caught only 2.7 million. So a 16 percent cut in the guideline harvest is still more than the sport charter fishery actually landed last year. Bid for one-fish limit not OK'dProposed halibut catch reductions in the central Gulf mirror proposed cuts for nearly all halibut fisheries from the U.S.-Canada border to the Bering Sea. The IPHC is a treaty organization that sets catch limits. The U.S. and Canadian governments retain the authority to decide who actually gets to catch the fish allotted to 11 IPHC zones from California north. Alaska just went through an ugly political tussle over such allocations when the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, a commercial-fishing dominated organization that recommends management plans for U.S. waters, tried to stick it to charter operators by cutting the sport angler limit in half. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which usually endorses Council recommendations, balked at this one after charter-boat owners and their clients raised a stink. The North Pacific Council, they argued, had largely ignored the economic impacts of changes destined to affect hundreds of small businesses and ripple through small, Alaska coastal communities from Ketchikan around the Gulf Coast to Kodiak. Charter operators in Homer thought the Council owed everyone an explanation as to just how many were likely to go out of business if NOAA approved the plan to cut anglers aboard sport charters back to one fish. U.S. Commerce Department officials in Washington, D.C. declined to approve the regulations and sent the whole plan back to the council, which is trying to figure out what to do next. Commercial fishermen concede the "catch share plan" would have taken fish from charters and reallocated at least some of them back to commercial fishermen. But, they contend, that's only because the setup for the fisheries was unfair from the get-go. The charter fisheries were given a fixed harvest level in 2003, while commercial fisheries have been working for more than two decades under a harvest level tied to the steadily shrinking number of halibut in the ocean. That's too bad, counter the charter operators, who note that when the halibut decline finally ends commercial catches are likely to go up as fast as they came down. But when will it finally end? The lingering question for both groups is whether halibut will grow in size and number. As Sidney Swetzof from the Pribilof Islands told the IPHC Tuesday during a short question-and-answer period, "It's very disturbing to us."
by hap | January 27, 2012 - 10:46am
The real reason draggers refuse to keep halibut by-catch for processing is the simple fact they are getting away with a monstrous slight of hand... The by-catch figure is FAR higher than they admit. They do not have observers on every boat and when an observer is aboard the captain of the vessel gets to pick the observed drags. Do they really believe the poulation/biomass numbers will ever rise when they are reducing the catch by 42% when their numbers show a decrease of 56%? A crashing population being severly over-harvested on the way down is ridiculous... and should be criminal...
by Monel | January 26, 2012 - 11:52pm
Does anybody else but me suspect that removing some 2+ BILLION POUNDS of pollock annually might just be messing with the entire North Pacific/Gulf of Alaska/Bering Sea ecosystem in ways we cannot begin to decipher? Yes, the halibut bycatch of the Pollock Trawl Fleet is the gorilla in the room that must be addressed, and, I believe that same pollock trawl fishery will someday collapse with widespread collateral damage. The hubris we humans display in believing we can understand the complex oceanic interactions sufficiently to "manage" the ocean is mind-boggling. Our greed will ultimately destroy the fishery as it has in most every other industrialized fishery on the planet. We can't even "manage" the predator/prey relationships on the Kenai to yield sufficient moose to satisfy our hunger. Pogo was right.
by Rita | January 26, 2012 - 10:56pm
my initial thought was similar to Tiglax-make them retain and process the bycatch,then divide the profits amongst the Commercial Halibut Fishermen -the poundage would count against the total IFQ Allocations-but do NOT give ANY percentage of the bycatch proceeds to the Trawlers, expenses or otherwise-I'd be willing to bet they would quickly find a way to reduce Halibut bycatch on their own!
by Oldhaines | January 27, 2012 - 11:12am
That "idea" is based on a incorrect assumption that these Halibut are somehow "owned" by the IFQ holders. If anything, the fish belong to the people of the State of Alaska.
by AKsmokesalmon | January 26, 2012 - 5:05pm
There are two primary pollock fisheries in Alaska - the one in the Bering Sea is worth $2,000 million in ex-vessel value, while the one in the Gulf of Alaska is worth $20 million in ex-vessel value, making it one / one hundredth of the size compared to the Bering Sea. Most of the halibut bycatch is not associated with the Bering Sea fisheries, but with the Gulf of Alaska fisheries, where the highest concentration of halibut are located in the North Pacific. The Bering Sea pollock fishery primarily operate on the catch share basis, while the Gulf of Alaska pollock fishery does not, instead it is still an open access fishery. The North Council has quite a few more tools in the management box to reduce bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, both for halibut and salmon, whereas there are relatively few tools to deal with bycatch in the open access pollock fishery and other such commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska.
by tiglax | January 26, 2012 - 8:46pm
There is a trawl fishery targeting sole and other bottom fish. This fishery also has considerable halibut bycatch. One idea being floated is to require the trawl fleet to retain all halibut. Process them, sell them with a small percentage returned for fuel etc. expenses. The bulk of proceeds would be divided among all longline IFQ holders as compensation for them not being able catch the allowable bycatch reduction from the TAC.
by Oldhaines | January 27, 2012 - 11:11am
That "idea" is based on a incorrect assumption that these Halibut are somehow "owned" by the IFQ holders. If anything, the fish belong to the people of the State of Alaska.
by tiglax | January 26, 2012 - 10:47am
The bycatch is very easy to understand, more than 10 million pounds wasted in 2011 season! This, according to facts presented in this article, is more than the ENTIRE SPORT CAUGHT CATCH. Make the trawlers responsible, it is wanton waste of our public resource! An illegal crime in Alaska. If a sport fisherman killed and threw overboard one halibut he would be liable for wanton waste. How can the trawl fleet get away with it? It makes no sense. ALL stakeholders need to get on board and stop this waste!
by Oldhaines | January 27, 2012 - 12:25pm
Of course it is easy to understand and it should stop. But, I can see no reason to give the profits from by-catch to IFQ holders. We need to focus on managing this species for the good of the public not for the good of commercial interests such as IFQ holders, Trawlers and commercial charter permit holders.
by Reformed Fisherman | January 26, 2012 - 2:35pm
I sure hope this issue is brought up every time that the decrease in biomass is discussed. I fished halibut out of kodiak for 6 years. The average size of our catch went down significantly in those few years. I couldn't take watching the way our state stands by and allows our resources to be exploited to the point of collapse. It made me leave the fishing industry. One solution would be 100% observer coverage. I still don't understand why that hasn't at least been tried. Right now draggers can just go on pleasure cruises while the observers get the required hours and then drop them off and go back to pillaging the ocean floor with no one to report to. I am glad to see the quotas going down as a start. I think the quota for by catch needs to go down at least as much as the sellable quota. I would like to see someone find another fishery that allows the bycatch to be just as much as the amount caught to sell. That cannot be allowed to continue.
by Oldhaines | January 27, 2012 - 12:28pm
As Arne Fugolvog showed us, those Trawlers are not the only commercial interests out there abusing the fishery. |













Comments